Thursday, February 27, 2014

Well, the Arizona governor caved. She vetoed the bill that would allow business persons to conduct their business according to their conscience. Many people approve of this veto, even Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann, but the law would only have protected people from being coerced into assisting at events and ceremonies to which they object. It is not as if the law was going to allow restaurant owners to refuse service to gay persons, or car mechanics to refuse service to a gay car owner. The law would have protected those business persons who saw their service as facilitating a gay ceremony to which they have religious objections.

So the homosexual activists have struck another victory in their push to make their lifestyle accepted by everyone as perfectly normal. Portraying themselves as victims of injustice and discrimination, they equate their sexual orientation with the equivalence of race.

What we are seeing is reverse discrimination against Christians who cannot take part in something that they consider to go against their beliefs. There is no lack of florists or bakers who will be willing to make a wedding cake or provide the flowers for a same-sex wedding, should one business owner refuse. This is a vendetta against the minority of business owners who do not wish (and feel that they cannot) provide services for an event that they consider counter to their beliefs.

No one is saying that a gay person cannot shop in a certain store or eat in a certain restaurant; what is at stake here is a very specific section of business services that can easily be found elsewhere. Why the drive to corner these people and make them comply? Or worse still, why will they be sued and driven out of business because they won't provide the service requested. It is not as if that service cannot be found somewhere else and quite easily.

This is tyranny.

A young student emailed me during a discussion we were having about abortion. She said that she was distressed that, in objecting to abortion, I was trying to undo what she and her feminist friends had managed to achieve for themselves: reproductive freedom. I replied that, from my standpoint, she and her friends had managed to undo what I and other Christians had long held as protection for the unborn. One person's idea of freedom is what can take away someone else's.

So too with gay rights. Now that the consensus is on their side, the LGBT community is succeeding in getting their "rights" to trump those of others in society. But whose values are being overturned? I maintain that it is the values on which our countries were founded that are being ransacked by people who think their behaviour deserves to be acknowledged, accepted, and proclaimed as perfectly normal. Even on a natural level, the results of medical tests are convincing doctors that this behaviour reaps its own grisly rewards.

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

A Roman Catholic priest says it is time to bring out the big guns and he is saying the traditional Latin Mass outside in a parking lot across from the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic. Talk about gutsy!

The idea to celebrate the Catholic Mass in front of Planned Parenthood came from Fr. Joseph Hearty, Assistant Pastor at Our Lady of Mount Carmel in nearby Littleton, who felt that it was time to “pull out the big guns.” It was, he told LifeSiteNews, an inspiration from the Holy Spirit.

“If we can pray the rosary, why not offer the Mass, why not use the Mass and the Eucharist as a means of fighting this tragedy,” he said. “Why not use the most powerful means that we have?”

“Our fight is not against the world, it’s against principalities and darkness, it’s against evil, it is against the devil,” says Fr. Hearty. “Why not make a few demons quake?”

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Linda Gibbons is on a nation-wide tour, raising money for the legal battle of Mary Wagner. Mary is in jail for entering abortion clinics and calmly offering women an alternative to the procedure they are about to have.

Her lawyer plans on taking her case right to the Supreme Court and challenging the fact that Canada has no protection for those citizens who are in the womb. The costs to do this will be close to $200,000 and they have raised almost three-quarters of this already.

Linda is in New Brunswick this week, giving talks in various locations. The link below is a radio interview that was conducted by Jeff Lutes on CITA-FM. Take 30 minutes and listen to this great grandmother who has spent over 10 years in prison for those who have no voice to defend themselves.

Thursday, February 20, 2014

In New Orleans, a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic is delayed as the strongest protest comes from the Archbishop.

What could be one of the most influential protests so far is a letter from Archbishop Gregory Aymond that has been distributed in every Catholic church in the metro area through the Archdiocese newspaper, the Clarion-Herald.

In it, Archbishop Gregory Aymond says "Abortion is a grave evil... The Archdiocese is obliged to remind every person and organization involved in the acquisition, preparation and construction of this or any abortion facility that they are cooperating with the evil that will take place there.”

Aymond said the Archdiocese will boycott any person or business who plays a role in helping the Planned Parenthood facility to become a reality.

Imagine what could happen here in Canada if we were to do the same? Simply stop doing any business with anything connected with abortion? Of course, since abortions are paid for by our taxes, people would simply get fired for not complying with the demands. So no one dares to speak up.

I even know of one woman who works in the hospital as a porter and tries to justify working in the abortion clinic by saying that she will pray for all the girls who come there for abortions. If she refused to have anything to do with the grisly business, I think that would be a far greater witness to the truth.

Is that what really holds Canadians back from standing up against abortion? the fact that we will be punished by the state or by employers if we don't cooperate? That would explain a lot.

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Anderson Cooper of CNN asks some questions of the Copenhagen zoo keeper who euthanized a healthy giraffe rather than transporting it to another zoo. These same questions could be asked of someone who chooses abortion rather than giving birth because they think the child's quality of life will not be as good as they wish.

Monday, February 17, 2014

I have often thought that the push of feminists for abortion and for "reproductive rights" is really a rejection of what it is to be truly female. In seeking equality with men, they deny what makes us feminine. And at the root of their ideology is a rejection of the natural differences between men and women. And therefore it is essentially a rejection of the way the sexes have been created. Their fight is with nature itself.

In my encounters with feminists in the classroom, I found myself at pains trying to convince them that freedom must be combined with intelligence in order for it to be profitable. One surely has the freedom to walk across a busy intersection blindfolded, but that is not very intelligent. In fact, it is courting self-destruction. A woman can choose to dress provocatively, but she may pay dearly for it. A woman has the freedom to try being a man, but, like the horse that tried to sing like a nightingale, risks losing sight of her own femininity. The freedom to indulge in reckless sexual activities, to clamor for abortion, and to assault those with whom you disagree is not consistent with developing one’s self as a person. The Deadly Sin of pride ascribes too much importance to the isolated self and accords too little importance to intelligence.

Donald DeMarco also thinks that immodesty in dress negates personhood, because it causes women to be seen as objects by men. As many have remarked, this is the antithesis of empowering women.

Although certain feminists want to be more like men (they have now invaded the world of sumo wrestling), in so doing, they have created an unbridgeable gap between themselves and the sex they seek to emulate. On the one hand, they reserve for themselves the right to be as immodest as they please, while at the same time they demand that men adopt the virtue of heroic sexual restraint. The pride that forbids modesty ultimately wages war on its opponents. According to the Femen website, “our naked war will continue against anyone who threaten {sic} our right to abort”. The convergence of immodesty with war is not to be taken lightly.

Saturday, February 15, 2014

A recent report on Nova Scotia's economic future highlighted the problem of population decline. Despite all the recommendations put forward, the problem of the declining birth rate and the steady number of abortions annually was never addressed.

The solution to Nova Scotia's demographic decline is seen in encouraging more immigration. I never hear anyone ask if Nova Scotians really want to be taken over by Chinese and Arabic immigrants, which are the two groups that do come here.

Given the propensity of most Nova Scotians not to trust anyone who comes "from away", I doubt that immigration will be much of a solution.

Perhaps encouraging families to have more children, encouraging families to stay together, and encouraging young women not to abort their babies might have more effect. But then that would be traditional morality, and that is in decline just like the population.

The report, released today by the Nova Scotia Commission on Building Our New Economy, anticipates a grave turn for the province’s economy. Entitled “Now or Never: An Urgent Call to Action,” it was commissioned in 2012 by the then-NDP government, and seems to confirm what population experts have been forecasting for Western economies with their falling birth rates.

But not a word of the 243-page report addressed the impact anti-life ideologies have had on the province’s declining birthrate.

Rather than focusing on the anti-life causes of the population decline, the report focused on ways to boost immigration and building business as a means of staving off the decline. “We need to achieve significantly higher rates of attraction and retention of both inter-provincial and international immigrants to grow the population overall, increase the number of entrepreneurs, and renew the labour force,” it stated.

Ask yourself this question: If the Vatican produced a survey on attitudes towards ecology that found that the majority of the baptized in Germany liked burning down forests and wantonly killing animals, would that information have been reported to Rome without a hint of condemnation, or even embarrassment, by the German Bishops’ Conference?

An interesting article about the results of a Bishops' synod in Germany on Catholic teaching. It shows that most Catholics reject Church teaching on morality, sexuality, divorce, homosexuality, and birth control. There's not much left.

What we have here is a push to change Church teaching on sexual morality. Sociology trumps revelation and reason. The people have spoken, they told us what they want, and it is unjust to ignore or contradict them! The faithful in Germany are either blamelessly unfamiliar with Church doctrine, or they find it unconvincing, hence the teachings must be jettisoned.

Friday, February 14, 2014

A friend sent me an oped that Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary published in the Calgary Herald on Feb 13, 2014. It is with regards to the Bill 52 that is being pushed through the Quebec Legislature. The bill is called An Act Respecting End-of-Life Care.
Henry points out what has gone on here in order to push through an agenda for euthanasia.

“End-of-life care” is defined as “palliative care provided to persons at the end of their lives, including terminal palliative sedation, and medical aid in dying.”

This definition changes what is meant by palliative care. The terms “terminal palliative sedation” and “medical aid in dying” are purposefully misleading. They are euphemisms for euthanasia. We need some plain speech.

Euthanasia is the intentional killing of someone, with or without his or her consent, either by act or omission. By killing the person, one seeks to eliminate all aspects of that person’s life including pain, suffering or humiliation of being in need of help. The person who commits euthanasia must intend, for whatever reason, to kill the other and must cause their death.

Euthanasia is incompatible with the philosophy and goal of palliative care. Palliative care provides a dignified death by giving patients the pain management and the social, emotional and spiritual support they require to live a good death with courage. Good palliative care, through traditional spiritual care and newly developed programs and therapies, can help the dying find meaning in their pain and suffering, and enable them to deal with unfinished business in their lives.

Change the language and push whatever it is that you want. We need to call our legislators to account for this and not let them get away with it. Otherwise they really will call black white and white black, good evil and evil good. As was done with abortion, the language is changed in order to get a grisly reality past people without their noticing.

Thursday, February 13, 2014

Before you support abortion, be sure you know what you are supporting. Notice the tiny hand and foot in the dish after the abortion. And the abortionist's only concern is that he got everything. He congratulates the young woman on being a good patient, and assures her that she will be fine.

Where is he when she will awake in the night and cry for her dead child?

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

When it comes to freedom of speech, the Americans have it all over us Canadians by a long shot. For American citizens, freedom of speech is written into their Constitution. Here in Canada, we have no protection for our freedom of speech and we even have a Human Rights Commission to decide on issues where one party claims to be "offended" by the speech of another.

Case in point.

In mid-January, the Supreme Court of the US heard the case of Eleanor McCullen who was being blocked by a Massachusetts ordinance from getting any closer than 35 feet to an abortion clinic. For years, decades in fact, Eleanor has been quietly talking to women going into the clinic, trying to persuade them to make a different choice. And she has been quite successful, having saved hundreds of babies from abortion.

The case for McCullen was argued ably that morning by Mark Rienzi of the law school of the Catholic University of America, and it looks as though he will win this case. Apart from the clarity of his own argument, he is aided by the fact that the Court has changed in composition since it upheld a comparable statute from Colorado mandating a zone of eight feet away from abortion clinics.

The precedent for this case is Hill v. Colorado in 2000. When the case was presented that pro-lifers could maintain their protest at a distance from the clinic, Justice Scalia spoke up saying that these people are not protesting, but are in fact simply having a conversation with the abortion-bound women. And having a conversation at 8' or 35' is not possible. That would involve a megaphone and that would involve shouting, something that these sidewalk counselors are not doing.

The case may very well be decided in favour of Eleanor McCullen. It makes me think of our own Linda Gibbons here in Canada who has spent more than 10 years in jail for doing that very thing, attempting to persuade women to consider another choice. She doesn't shout, she doesn't protest, she just talks quietly to them and tries to give them information on other choices they could consider. But here in Canada, Linda returns to jail over and over, because there is no allowance for her freedom of speech.

Does it not seem incomparably unfair that the staff of the abortion clinic can come out, take women by the arm, speak to them and steer them inside the doors of the clinic, while Linda goes to jail for trying to do the same thing but with a different result? The public sidewalk is public property, yet the right of abortion workers to talk to women there is never questioned, while Linda's right to speak is never granted.

I am anxious to see the result of this case. In so many ways, I think that we Canadians need to look to our southern neighbours to see how they are winning this fight.

Monday, February 10, 2014

People really dislike when you bring up demographics in the pro-life argument. They claim that pro-life advocates are trying to control women and make them bear children. And I can understand their dislike of that agenda, although I really don't think most pro-life people even think much about that.

However, demographics do factor into the economic state of our countries. And this article really shows how simple it is. Makes me wonder why our leaders don't talk about this more. But then, it is treading on the sacred ground of "reproductive rights" and, heaven forbid, that we should realise that the natural cycle of birth and regeneration is important even for human beings.

Good economies depend upon having consumers. And the peak consumption years of consumers is when they are raising their families. Before and after that, they are not big spenders. People without children simply don't fuel the economy enough to keep it vibrant. It depends upon people needing houses, cars, education, dental work, all the things that people are focused on when bringing up their kids.

Following the Baby Boom, which peaked in 1961, came the Baby Bust, a long slow decline in the birthrate. Those babies grew up and began spending in accordance with highly predictable patterns.

Ultimately the size of the US economy is simply the total of what we’re all spending. Overall household spending hits a high when we’re about 46. So the peak of the Baby Boom (1961) plus 46 suggests that a high point in the US economy should be about 2007, with a long, slow decline to follow for years to come.

Dent, a business consultant, stock-market prognosticator and author who says now is the time to sell stocks, has plucked an old argument off the dusty shelves of 1980s political rhetoric (“We’re nothing like Japan! And that’s horrible!”) and given it a new coat of paint: We’re exactly like Japan! And that’s horrible!

As the Japanese have hit their 60s and 70s, they became stingier. Artificial, forced spending like government stimulus is not going to spark real voluntary spending because that isn’t what old people do. They’ve already paid for their houses, cars and their children’s schooling. Merchants try to goose lackluster sales by cutting prices, which increases the incentive for people to save their money, expecting things will be cheaper in the future than they are today.

Implicitly, Dent is saying: Don’t blame politicians, the decline of manufacturing, education or cheap foreign imports for the economic stagnation that has already begun and will continue for many years. Blame your parents and grandparents for losing interest in having children back in the Sixties.

Friday, February 7, 2014

... as Huang and colleagues point out, “the incidence of breast cancer in China has increased at an alarming rate over the past two decades” – from around 36 cases per 100,000 women to 51 cases. -

Why? One answer could be that multiple abortions eroded the Chinese advantage. The Huang study notes that China has one of the highest prevalences of abortion in the world. An average of 8.2 million medical terminations a year were reported between 1983 and 2010. It is estimated that one in four Chinese women have had at least one abortion, and around 40 pregnancies are aborted for every 100 births.

But no-one looking at the twin epidemics of abortion and breast cancer in one-child China could responsibly dismiss the possibility that one contributed to the other. “As one of the countries with the highest prevalence of IA [induced abortion], in China, it is particularly important to clarify the association between IA and breast cancer risk,” write Huang and co-authors.

A study from Southern India published in the Indian Journal of Community Medicine in May found a 6-fold greater risk of breast cancer among Indian women with a history of induced abortion compared to women with no history of abortion. In a similar study from Bangladesh published in the Journal of the Dakha Medical College in April increased risk from abortion was even higher – 20 times that of women with no abortions. That’s increases of 2000 percent and 600 percent!

Lei Fan and colleagues have hinted at a veritable tsunami of breast cancer threatening China as wave after wave of women who have been compelled to abort their babies in order to meet the rules of the Chinese fertility revolution grow older.

Women in the prosperous and free countries of the West are under no such compulsion, but they do suffer under a quasi-official rule that withholds from them information about abortion that may be vital to their health and their very lives.

Ironically, it is the totalitarian regime in China that may be setting the standard for freedom of information on this issue. Let’s see what happens next.

Sunday, February 2, 2014

This song has been nominated for an Academy award, however there are some difficulties being encountered and it has been rescinded for the moment. I am sure that will be reversed as public support will rise up knowing that this is Christian bigotry. But it doesn't really matter.

The singer is a quadriplegic woman of 64 who has been in a wheelchair for 47 years. She is an amazing Christian witness and teacher, I have heard her speak about suicide in a way that only someone who has felt true despair could speak. I love the smile on her face as she finishes the song, that was her greatest reward to have sung this well for her God.